[Closed] Do you have to pay to go to church?

I suspect if you did, a lot fewer people would be religious...

Collections plate innit.

Probably some rich donators, but mainly I think because the church has a lot of assets and probably a lot of cash that it can make work for it. It's been in this game a looooong time in this country.

In other countries though (Germany and Finland at least), when you register yourself as a resident you have to put down if you are religious, then they take some adiditional tax to fund your church.

Collections plate innit.

The original version of crowdfunding?

CofE has quite a profitable property portfolio IIRC.

Weddings, funerals, that fat club you go to, various other groups hiring the Church hall for birthdays, meetings etc.

Lots of assets, lots of parishioners donating money either at the plate, through regular fund raising or even bequeathing large amounts following their own demise. Lots of old folk involved with churches...

You pay with your soul.

[i] Lots of old folk involved with churches.[/i]

Probably feel they have most to gain from getting in God's good books...

CofE has quite a profitable property portfolio IIRC.

This mainly.

It's the business model of some of the evangelical churches which is more amusing. In my more impressionable youth, I was part of a a middle-class happy clappy church whose constant mantra was about the joys of double or even triple tithing. (A tithe is 10% of gross income...). Everything was about money so they could throw up bigger buildings with better sound systems.

I may have become a little disenchanted with both church and religion shortly afterwards. 🙂

Around us there are quite a few farms owned by the church (I think it's the Catholic church) so there's rent from those. Farms owned by religious institutions goes back a long way - much of the wealth of the monasteries was based on wool for example.

I remember an episode of The Simpsons where Reverend Lovejoy stresses this:

[AABF06] [a sermon about tithing] "[i]And once again tithing is 10% off the top. That's gross income, not net. Please people, don't force us to audit. Now I'm going to pass this around a second time. Brother Ned, you'll do the honors.[/i]"

Though Rev. Lovejoy isn't C of E, he's Presbylutheran.

few farms owned by the church (I think it's the Catholic church) so there's rent from those. Farms owned by religious institutions goes back a long way - much of the wealth of the monasteries was based on wool for example.

I thought Henry VIII had a patriotric policy of 'taking back control' in this area?

It's the Catholics we have to thank for Mastiles Lane, so I guess it's not all bad.

Around us there are quite a few farms owned by the church (I think it's the Catholic church) so there's rent from those. Farms owned by religious institutions goes back a long way - much of the wealth of the monasteries was based on wool for example.

went along to an evengelical meeting with a gf once, and the sermon was very much geared towards emptying the pockets of the crowd.

God loves good givers apparently (not the poor after all)

[Trump]Who knew?[/Trump]

Peddling divine forgiveness while wielding the threat of eternal damnation is a very very profitable business

Church have been experts at conning people out of money since they first existed. Read some history of the church in UK and how it conned people of their land and money in dodgy deals. Now they refuse to use any of that money for maintenance of their own real estate and expect all church repairs to be paid for out of "donations". Church, probably the most successful pyramid scheme ever 🙁

The C of E relies on donations and legacies as well as income from its assets. It does have a large portfolio of investments (land and buildings and share portfolio).

A quick glance at the Charity Commission website shows total assets for the Church Commissioners for England of just over £7bn.

At present income nowhere near covers costs, so assets are steadily being depleted.

You can often determine which farms were attached to a monastery as they were referred to as "granges".

In the middle ages you had the tithe barns where villagers would deposit 10% (a tithe) of their crops. The proceeds from this supported the local priest.

At present income nowhere near covers costs, so assets are steadily being depleted.

If only there were some sort of loving over-seer that could sort this little snafu, eh?

Very interesting....so, realistically, if you were a committed member of a more evangelical C of E church with a household income of 60k, they'd expect £6k PA from you? I mean, i respect people's right to do whatever they want with their money, but do people actually pay that??

Im not sure, but I think as it would be a charitable donation, it can be offset against ones tax bill, so not as bad as that

It really depends on which Church.

I spent a bit of time in a Church in Wales Church when we wanted the youngest christened there and get married.

You don’t have to pay to go into a CofE / Church in Wales church, they’ll pass a plate – some people drop in a few coins, some make a bit too much noise as they have to fumble with their wallet to pull out a twenty, just saying.

There are a couple of fees for getting married that go to the government, a few more optional things – like we paid £20 to the person who operates the fake church bells to make them ring as we left, it’s all very honest and transparent. I think it was £140 all-in, a fraction of the cost of hiring a venue.

Attendance is falling and they're closing churchs - 'our' Priest is actually the Priest for 3 churchs, he does 6 shows a day on Sunday, 2 in each.

My Wife is Catholic by Birth as are some of my family, they’re a bit more ‘direct’ on that side of the fence, if you’re a good Christian and go every week you’ll be firmly but politely asked to contribute to the upkeep of the church and stuff at a level that befits your position in the community.

I think they're struggling to keep numbers up to, they've got a lot of very devot members but they're dying off - the Catholic Church globally is meant to be one of the richest organisations in the world, but the UK struggles, we did kill an awful lot of them back in the day.

A couple of my mates are Baptists, they’re like hardcore Christians, they’re not part of the either of the above, and I don’t think they’re centrally funded. They’ve got a Pastor rather than a Priest, it’s members are asked to give 10% of their money to the Church to run it – how the 10% is calculated is up to the individual members, it can be 10% of their gross income, 10% of the net or 10% of their disposable income. I don’t know what their pastor gets paid but he seems to have a comfortable / modest lifestyle.

P-Jay pretty much has it.

It depends on the church, really, but since the OP was asking about the CofE, the answer is: mixed. Legacies, weekly collections, hall rentals, fees for weddings and funerals: all of those things add up to cover costs.

EDIT: I should add that nobody [i]has[/i] to pay anything.

In other countries though (Germany and Finland at least), when you register yourself as a resident you have to put down if you are religious, then they take some adiditional tax to fund your church.

yup... in Germany there is an extra box you have to fill in when registering here. the lady helping me fill out the form was almost offended when i asked that she put me down as atheist; although i did first say i believe in myself, which turns out wasn't on the form.

friend recdently opted out. he was earning 3600€ gross each month and paying nearly 50€ a month.... 600€ a year! and it still cost him 35€ to opt out...!

CofE own a lot of London.

Donations don't count for much but bequeathed donations of either cash or property is very common.

It is quite common for true believers to tithe 10% of their earning to the church. My parents do and always have done.

Scientologists pay. And pay to believe in this...

[img] [/img]

Its an interesting time for churches - congregations are falling but a lot of people still expect certain services from the church out of tradition even if they're not church-goers as such. They might still want a christening as part of the announcement / celebration of having a child or a church wedding and an awful lot of people want a church funeral, but they're not part of the community supporting that service the rest of the time.

It means there's falling incomes and fewer priests to do these duties (partly because dying and retiring priests aren't being replaced by new ones and partly because congregations being merged) meaning theres more work for these remaining priests to do. Dealing with the dead and the dying is really tough but its a bigger and bigger part of their work. A friend became a minister recently and she was one of only 3 or 4 new entrants in the country that year but with loads more than that retiring or dying and she's just run ragged doing funerals - parishes are huge and the church going community is old and dying and the workload can be incredible.

There was a survey of priest a little while back that revealed that a lot of them have to hide in their houses with the lights off as the only way to get any kind of a break because the phone and doorbell never stop ringing day or night.

I've been to a few funerals myself of late and in almost every case the priests conducting services had been drafted back in from retirement and were older and in worse health than the people they were burying. -Crippled by strokes, or suffering from terminal cancer and dragged back to work because theres nobody else available to do it.

My dad used to refer to the people who only came to church to be christened, married or buried as "four wheeled Christians"

As I help with the finances of my local Church I am probably better informed than most. Collections (most is done by standing order rather than in the collection plate) are still a very important income source, just under 50% for us but frankly ours are way too low. We also generate income from our Halls where commercial users pay proper rates, but the Charities (AA, the drugs equivalent etc) gets a much cheaper rate.

The Church does have assets but it also has substantial liabilities which people tend to ignore. The perception that the Church is loaded is incredibly unhelpful. We are presently working out how to raise at least £500,000 to re-build a Church Hall, which will only involve a small incremental increase in income. The local community who are the prime beneficiaries seem to think the Church should just pay for it for them - the sense of entitlement is unbelievable.

I contribute to the upkeep of two local churches via Karate and the Cub Pack that I'm involved with. Another local church is taking on the social function of the Libraries that are being closed. Play groups, computer access, Lego club, general community meeting places etc.

Not sure how many worshippers they are pulling in, but the three halls in question are booked for every week night.

Most churches IME make it clear that visitors needn't worry about putting money in the plate, may regulars to standing order so no-one's gonna judge you. For those that feel they are part of their church they do a lot more than just attend on Sundays and it's really the focus of their life so contributing significant somes feels fine for them.

My Dad's a retired vicar and now goes on short missions to eastern Europe mostly using my inheritance to fund...they're a funny lot these Christians 😉

Depends a bit on the church as well with CofE. Some take enough through collections to find themselves and support others. Some barely get by and rely on voluntary/retired staff and Goodwill to keep going

Many churches will publish their annual accounts if you are really interested.

Edit:and what mudshark sez

in Ireland as late as the 60's they'd actually read out what everyone had given that week, during mass in front of the whole town. Horrible stuff 😡

https://www.ft.com/content/d87f60ec-3cbc-11e7-821a-6027b8a20f23?mhq5j=e1

Must be doing good business.

jizyah looming..

For most churches (such as Roman Catholic) it's voluntary, although I think some members of the congregation probably don't see it that way.

My mother in law went to a particular church multiple times a week for about 30 years, she got unwell and couldn't travel regularly to that church so went to one closer to home on a bus route. After partaking in post mass tea and biscuits she was cornered by one of the regulars and told as she hadn't contributed regularly to that church she shouldn't really have tea and biscuits (despite paying for them).

A similar story for my Mum...she wanted to get out and about and meet people so started going to a church nearby. One of the regulars invited her to a BBQ at her house for the church...at the BBQ another of the regulars accused her of being a gatecrasher as she hadn't donated regularly to the church.

So, donating is voluntary, but if you're a regular you're expected to pay.

Don't forget the CofE own places like Llangegla and long term lease it out, so bound to get revenue for that..
They also have a lot of mobile phone kit in the towers on a lot of churches and get paid for that too..

I think McHamish is right - very welcoming but if you don't play by the rules as members of the local parish see them you'll get told and made to feel uncomfortable.

Which doesn't strike me as terribly Christian as they can't know anyone's personal circumstances.

Which doesn't strike me as terribly Christian as they can't know anyone's personal circumstances.

Doesn't matter where you are, who you are or where you go, some people are not nice!

[i]some people are not nice! [/i]

true, but to claim to speak for the church they must feel they have some standing within the community. And, one assumes, some sort of religious beliefs around Jesus' teaching including his words about temples and money?

true, but to claim to speak for the church they must feel they have some standing within the community.

People who aren't nice don't necessarily know they're not nice. And if you told them - they'd think "well, he's not very nice."

My FIL was the treasurer of the church he attended weekly and contributed to for 30 years.

He's retired, so like everyone else except the vicar, was an unpaid volunteer. He's no slouch financially (ex-accountant), but it was hard work and very time consuming.

When he gave me some insight into what's perceived as a wealthy parish, I was surprised to learn that the annual income of the church is less than mine*.

Of this, the two main costs are paying the vicar's salary and then providing its share into the diocese. The amount left is minimal to cover all the other expenses. There's no profit - it runs at a loss each year and is eating its reserves.

Remember that the CofE is a dying organisation - as others have said, pretty much literally. As for RC, remember that, in spite of the RC church being significantly in the minority in England, around the same number from each of RC and Cof E attend church each week.

I worked with a guy who was a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) and my assessment was the combination of having six kids and paying a tithe from his gross salary meant that, until he got a significant pay rise, he was on the brink of bankruptcy.

*Not a humblebrag - village parish with a dwindling congregation = not very much income with significant running costs. I donate via standing order even though I'm an atheist: I believe in community, so it's one of a number of organisations I'm happy to support who try to make a difference.

I did a couple of weeks of temping with the M*r*ons. Simple stuff going through data bases for formatting errors. When I worked out which column the contributions were I felt quite uncomfortable. I couldn't work out what made people hand over that kind of money when having that kind of money in the first place is at odds with biblical teaching. It smacked of the middle age Catholic practice of buying indulgences or paying a pilgrim to do a pilgrimage because you're not religious enough or too busy making money to do it yourself. Very strange.

Edit: the people were great, coffee breaks were somewhere between the EU referendum thread and a wheel size thread.

Our parish costs over £100,000 per annum to run, there are 12,500 parishes in the UK - it costs a lot of money a £7 billion investment fund isn't that much in that context.

*Not a humblebrag - village parish with a dwindling congregation = not very much income with significant running costs. I donate via standing order even though I'm an atheist: I believe in community, so it's one of a number of organisations I'm happy to support who try to make a difference.

Good for you - that is the reason I do what I do as well - people take what it does for granted and as society becomes increasingly secular, the Church is losing confidence in its voice and fails to get across all the good that it does.

It depends on the church, really, but since the OP was asking about the CofE, the answer is: mixed. Legacies, weekly collections, hall rentals, fees for weddings and funerals: all of those things add up to cover costs.

EDIT: I should add that nobody has to pay anything.

This is the situation at my church (c of e). They got rid of collections a couple of years ago as it was felt it made people feel obligated and put people off coming. Majority of income is regular giving and legacies. In the last 10 years I've been going I can't recall a guilt trip sermon - it's left to people to decide what they give and only the vicar and the church secretary have any details. The church's accounts are published on the web every year and audited. I expect most church's (c of e at least) take a similar approach. The church basically just breaks even but that includes funding a couple of mission partners overseas - pediatric doctors in Bangladesh.

Profits from our town charity shop go to the local church who in turn spend it on local projects which whilst I'm no big fan or religion does seem to be a very good idea.

My church (CofE) doesn't meet in a church building but instead currently meets in a secondary school. 10% of what is given is passed onto other charities, including a homeless charity in Reading. Many people in my church will give to those in need but would always want to do this anonymously. Currently my church are considering whether we can fund the fit out of a new community centre, which would be run by a newly established Charitable Incorporated Organisation and would be run not for profit. Any money to fund this new community centre would come from individuals in the church; fundraising and potentially grants that we can access.

Previous churches (all sorts of different types / denominations)that I've been a member of have through individual giving contributed to building programmes that were then used by the community including youth groups; basketball (as we had a full size sports hall); dance classes; societies, etc. all throughout the week. I am aware that in some instances, individuals have mortgaged their own properties / downsized / moved to cheaper areas to help fund facilities and / or to give more away to those in need.

Absolutely no requirement to pay to go to church though.

mefty - Member it costs a lot of money a £7 billion investment fund isn't that much in that context.

Have to question what are you stockpiling money for ?

Shirley it should be put to benefit believers.

(Someone had to say it)

It's also possible that you have a chancel repair covenant in your house deeds which means that you are responsible for paying for the upkeep and repairs of your local church/chapel. Would be very interested to see what would happen if one of those got called upon.

McHamish's comments on the Catholic church amaze me, I'd be going straight to the Priest and seeing what his opinion is.

Have to question what are you stockpiling money for ?

If you looked at my numbers, you would have seen that if every parish mirrors our run rate, the annual costs would be over £1.25 billion so that investment funds would fund it for less than 5 years.

I don't want to get into an argument, it's not my point.

But I don't see why the stockpiling of money helps [i]any[/i] congregation, now, then, future, past.

It pays for liabilties that continue - clergy pension liabilty is approx. £2 billion.

Do you have to pay to go to church?

You have to pay to have a look round York Minster, which I think is a bit cheeky seeing as Durham Cathedral (which makes York Minster look like a small bungalow) just has a donation box!

[quote=P-Jay ]Attendance is falling and they're closing churchs - 'our' Priest is actually the Priest for 3 churchs, he does 6 shows a day on Sunday, 2 in each.

Yeah, but 6 days off a week, it's not a bad gig.

Yeah, but 6 days off a week, it's not a bad gig.

Sadly they only get one day off a week.

Yeah, but 6 days off a week, it's not a bad gig.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha! 😐

Profits from our town charity shop go to the local church who in turn spend it on local projects which whilst I'm no big fan or religion does seem to be a very good idea.

true, but to claim to speak for the church they must feel they have some standing within the community. And, one assumes, some sort of religious beliefs around Jesus' teaching including his words about temples and money?

May thinks that she is a Christian, make of that what you will.

Yeah, but 6 days off a week, it's not a bad gig.

My Dad had Tuesdays off, was tricky persuading people not to contact him then though so it was like he was on call....

lots of LGBT stuff I presume

Interestingly they're getting really into that side of things - realizing their failings of the past perhaps?

Ridiculous organisations, the sooner we get rid of their archaic influence in our country the better. They should sell all their assetts and give it to the poor & build social housing on their land.

I don't think the organisations are ridiculous, I think they do provide a grounded support network.
But to be effective I support your view of asset stripping and land stockpile sell off and to put that into supporting local initiatives, housing for instance.

Ridiculous organisations, the sooner we get rid of their archaic influence in our country the better.

What changes should be made?

They should sell all their assetts and give it to the poor & build social housing on their land.

Ridiculous organisations, the sooner we get rid of their archaic influence in our country the better. They should sell all their assetts and give it to the poor & build social housing on their land.

Do you mean CofE or Catholic or both or all churches?

My church is independent, paid for the land and the building we have on it ourselves, indeed even have a big mortgage to pay off, don't have any cash spare at all (any surplus given away!). So I don't think we would take too kindly to someone stealing it off us for no other reason than they didn't believe what we do. I think that sort of thing happened in other countries quite a lot in the last century, wasn't remembered as a particularly nice thing to do.

Also you'd put about 60 people out of work too. I am assuming you'd find other equivalent work for them.

JY - that is not a valid response.

They should sell all their assetts and give it to the poor & build social housing on their land.

Amusingly, the Catholic Church appears to be right behind you on that one.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/03/11/vatican-adds-seven-new-deadly-sins-including-damaging-environment-and-drug.html

Bishop Girotti said that mortal sins also included taking or dealing in drugs, and social injustice which caused poverty or “the excessive accumulation of wealth by a few.”

Not sure I've seen much evidence of them selling off their vast reserves of property, art, gold, etc and redistributing the proceeds, mind you.

If they sold all their property, how would they make their money? You'd have to subscribe to go to church, which would exclude some of the people it helps most from its services.

And although you might be ever-so-brilliant and have evolved far beyond such fanciful beliefs, it's very important to a lot of people who need it. We fund other forms of support through the NHS and directly, so why not this?

Bishop Girotti said that mortal sins also included taking or dealing in drugs, and social injustice which caused poverty or “the excessive accumulation of wealth by a few.”

Not sure I've seen much evidence of them selling off their vast reserves of property, art, gold, etc and redistributing the proceeds, mind you.

You have to remember that the Catholic Church is a huge organisation 1.3b members, 225k parishes, 5k Bishops, 415k Priests, 45k Deacons, etc etc.

Like any large organisation, especially one that's not a hire and fire business there's a lot of internal politics and in-fighting, and yes there are some real shady characters near the top of the Catholic Church, too many geezers in red dresses with Gucci sunglasses and handmade shoes.

The current head of the Church, Pope Francis is a bit of a ‘no messing’ type of Guy and has said that he wants a “Poor Church for the Poor” which isn’t really how it’s been run in the past, he took over from a Pope that resigned which never usually happens after a short term in office (by the standards of Popes) and within 3 months of him taking over Priests who ran the shady Vatican Bank were being arrested.

We may see the Church selling off some of it more ‘lavish’ assets in the future – but not all of them, like large charities they’re not in the business of getting a quid and spending a quid – they invest and spend the profits on ‘good works’ so they can carry on forever.

If they sold all their property, how would they make their money?

Sermon on the mount

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on the earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break in and steal; 20but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.’

Whilst they do use the wealth for good [ though it is also in the churches interest and they decide what is good] there is also no doubt they have accumulated wealth and trinkets and they are in danger of serving two masters- would they give it all away?

One of those personally I just find it odd when those who have dedicated their life to salvation and they are told about the dangers of wealth that they would do this

Its a church it is not, or should not be and the Bible and Jesus is very clear on this point, a business interested in making money.

It shouldn't be making [i]profit[/i] no, but the people who work for it need to eat, and those buildings need upkeep and so on.

I was thinking that while the C of E is subject to the same oversight as all charities in the UK, the RC church on the other hand has its own state (the Vatican) where it has its HQ, so at that level can do whatever it wants.
Ideal situation if you wanted to set up your own money making religion (which I'm not saying the RC Church is).
I imagine cults like the Scientologists would love to be able to do this.

It shouldn't be making profit no

By any measure it has

Interesting and educational discussion, thanks.

Out of interest, does anyone know how mosques are funded? I was under the impression that it's a similar sort of tithe system but I don't actually know.

I imagine cults like the Scientologists would love to be able to do this.

Why is that a cult and not a religion? What's the difference (in this context)?

its should not be accumulating wealth

Depends what you mean by 'wealth' doesn't it?

If it accumulates assets to use to create money with which to do good charitable work, then there's nothing wrong with that. No different to Greenpeace buying themselves a boat for example - IF you think Greenpeace do good work with their boat, for the sake of argument.

@Cougar - I'll ask my boss (who's a muslim) on Monday. I think you are expected to give a proportion of your income to the mosque which uses it to provide help within the community.

Does anyone know if it's an urban myth that there's no legislation banning cults like Scientology because they can't draft anything that doesn't include the CofE?

Cheers. Yeah, that's what I thought.